Re: UL Marks and Repair of -Reply
Thanks, Craig -- and the others who've explained LA policy to me --for the information. Only in LA! It would seem the LA policy, like many other requirements, is honored more in the breach than the observance, as witness the large number of "we build 'em" computer stores -- who do neither product safety, nor EMI, nor many other tests -- with LA addresses. Which is another discussion thread, I think. Cheers, Cortland == Original Message Follows >> Date: 21-Feb-97 07:10:08 MsgID: 1046-12107 ToID: 72146,373 From: Craig Lambert >INTERNET:clamb...@digitech.com Subj: Re: UL Marks and Repair of -Reply Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoPart 1 of 1 Dear Cortland, LA is not running an NRTL, but they do have LA requirements for products that aren't labeled CSA or UL. One has to have the equipment approved and label it with a CLA(City of Los Angeles) label until the UL Listing or CSA Cert. is in place. Our product class is UL813 or IEC65. Before the LVD was in place, we had some adaptered product that had product listing, but the adapters were not listed, so we had to go through the CLA process to sell our musical equipment in LA. Hope this helps. Craig Lambert Harman Music Group Home of Dod, dbx, and DigiTech All sensible disclaimers apply. == End of Original Message =
Penalty for Non-Compliance
I hear a very disturbing subject being openly discussed among several of my European contacts. Distributors in Europe are saying that the CE marking is a joke. That many companies (European Companies are mentioned most often) are simply applying the CE marking to their products without testing. Some say that many companies were initially forced to do this because of the time and cost of testing and redesign, but since there is very little checking going on the risk is "Cost Effective". IS THIS TRUE? Has anyone heard of specific situations where a company or person has been fined or jailed for fraudulently placing the CE marking on non-compliant equipment? What is the penalty for non-compliance? What is the penalty for fraud? Is anyone checking? Is anyone getting in trouble? I have been asked to obtain strong evidence to counter this opinion. More or less to "put the fear of God" into distributors and reassure our marketing and sales force that delaying product to market for the CE mark is the right thing to do. Can you help? Please post or email me anything you can. Thanks, Brian Kunde brian_ku...@leco.com
NPSS (Northeast Product Safety Society) Meeting announcement
For all of you who are local to Massachusetts or will be in the area, Northeast Product Safety Society will have its regular monthly meeting this coming Wednesday, February 26, at EMC Corp.'s facility at 42 South St. in Hopkinton. You will have an opportunity to talk to your colleagues and friends from other companies, and hear a presentation by Paul d'Entremont from Teradyne on the subject of Industrial Design. The meeting starts at 7 p.m., everybody is welcome to attend. There will be refreshments at the door. ***SUBJECT TO BE DISCUSSED "Closing the loop" not "Tightening the Noose" In some industries Safety & Compliance are still treated as a difficult but necessary process applied late in the design cycle. Industrial Design, at the other extreme is expected to propose "Sky Blue" concepts of new products often without sufficient knowledge of the changing criteria by which the product will be accepted. Based on Paul's Industrial Design experience working with Safety Engineers for over 30 years he would like to open a dialog with members of the NPSS to find ways of better communicating with each other. The objective would be to facilitate the product development cycle and incidentally make both our jobs easier. BIOGRAPHY: Paul d'Entremont, 1979 to present, Director of Industrial Design TERADYNE corp. Boston. From 1963-79, GenRad, Chief Industrial Designer for test, audio and medical electronic instruments. From 1960-63, General Electric, Industrial Designer in the Human Factors group of the Military and Space Vehicles Division. BFA Mass College of Art, BPA Los Angeles Art Center, MID Syracuse U. Member - New England Chapter of the Human Factor Society. Past officer - Industrial Designers Society of America.
Re: UL Marks and Repair of
Cortland Richmond wrote: >Rich, > >This > >> the City's own testing laboratory and labelling service. > > sounds odd. Is the City of Los Angeles running a NRTL? Heck, if I'd known >that I would not have bothered sending for UL. > > >Cortland Not an NRTL, Cortland, just their own test lab. Many have been stopped from selling in LA for lack of their testing. Mainly things that're considered appliances. Peter L. Tarver Nortel peter_tarver-mt...@nt.com
>> MIL-STD-285 <
Can anyone tell me where to obtain MIL-STD-285 standard; Method of attenuation measurements for enclosures, electromagnetic shielding, for electronic test purposes or equivalent. Thanks in advance, Raymond Li
Re: UL Marks and Repair of
> sounds odd. Is the City of Los Angeles running a NRTL? Heck, if I'd known > that I would not have bothered sending for UL. Yes, they have their own testing laboratory and labelling service. I don't think it's an NRTL; it's just for local approvals. To be able to sell products in the city of Los Angeles, this mark is an optional alternative to other testing agencies that are registered by the city of L.A. Not sure if they recognize all of OSHA's NRTLs, but they have certainly registered UL and CSA. BTW, Rich forgot to mention that the States of Oregon and Washington will also accept labelling by CSA. :-) Egon Varju
Re: Products for Norway
The discussion about Norway illustrates a lot of the confusion about the term "IT system". It is very nonspecific. It has many uses, is applied very differently in various countries and situations, and without more description, can lead to assumptions about protection and available voltages which are not valid. For example, in Norway, the typical (I have been told) situation is a single phase 230V secondary which floats at about 115 volts to earth unless an earth fault occurs on one side which makes the maximum voltage 230V to earth. Since this is supplied from a high voltage service transformer, the danger of faults in the service transformer are covered by a device called a "disneuter", which is essentially a crowbar type circuit to force a secondary earth connection under such conditions. The IT systems are no longer permitted in the US, and the closest approximation is a floating circuit monitored by a line isolation monitor permitted in hospital environments. The more classic IT system would more often be a three phase isolating transformer used on branch circuits or panels such as motor loads. The old method was to make an impedant connection from a neutral or similar point on the circuit through an indicator such as a light bulb. If an earth fault occurred, the return current from the phase fault through earth and the indicator to the supply, would simply light the lamp, illustrating the fault and allowing maintenance to be postponed. This is normally no problem for three phase loads designed for the phase voltage involved. However, if the supply is a three phase wye used with single phase loads typically designed for the phase to neutral voltage, there can be a problem. If you earth phase A, phases B and C are at phase voltage with respect to earth. The single phase equipment on one of those phases is operating at a voltage (to earth) 75% over design values. With center tapped delta supplies, 100% overvoltages can be seen. If special protection is not used for supply transformer shorts, there is risk of the primary distribution voltages remaining on the mains supply. As a result, if you are designing for use on IT systems it is important to know the supply circuit type and the expected transient levels and fault level (continuous level during earth fault) operating voltages. Keep in mind that even though insulation is typically hypot tested at five to ten times operating voltage, you are eating significantly into that margin, and note that leakage currents can be two to three times normal under these conditions. Bob Johnson --- Begin Message --- To your Question 1: The items in EN60950 (and IEC950) setting special requirements to products used in IT-power systems are: Cl.1.7.10 The installation instruction shall state that the product is designed for connection to an IT-power system. Cl.2.7.4 For IT-system (System with unearthed neutral) a protective device is required in each phase conductor. However; in a "List of Decisions" from the Operation Staff Meeting (OSM) within CENELEC Norway states that they accepts only one protective device also. (In the same document Belgium states that they have 30% IT-power system but can accept one protective device only, if there is reinforced insulation between the phases and safety earth. Cl.5.2 w/Annex G Measuring earth leakage current. Measurement must be performed on all phase conductors. In short: For Norway; consider Cl.1.7.10 and Annex G of EN60950. Most likely your product complies as it is. To your Question 2: IT-Power system is common througout Norway. Best Regards and good luck in Norway ,?, (o o) |--oOO--(_)--OOo ---| | Finn-Erik Wallin Product Compliance Lab | | Mascot Electronic A/S | | finn.erik.wal...@mascot.no Mosseveien 109, Gressvik | | Tel: +47 69 36 43 40 P.O.Box 177, N-1601 Fredrikstad | | Fax: +47 69 32 94 33 NORWAY | | | | SMALL POWER SUPPLIES/CHARGERS FOR ALMOST ANY APPLICATION | |--- ---| >-- >From: PHILLIP FORD[SMTP:phil_f...@uk.xyratex.com] >Sent: onsdag, 19 februar, 1997 19:37 >To:emc-p...@ieee.org >Subject: Products for Norway > > >We make a product (a disk drive storage sub-system) >that has TUV approval to EN60950. It uses a power supply >that is also approved to EN 60950, but neither has been >evaluated for connection to an IT power system. > >The power supply is a Class 1 supply, using protective earthing. > >Question 1: Can this product be sold in Norway as it stands ? > >Question 2: Are IT power systems in common use in Norway or are >they restricted to certain areas ? > >Regards, PFORD at HVTVM GBXYR7PW at IBMMAIL >Phillip Ford phil_f
Re:
moshe valdman wrote: > > Hello all, > > I'm interested in the SEMI S2-93 (requirements for safety, > EMC, environment and other hazards for semiconductor > manufacturing equipment). > > Can someone give some background on this? Is there some > source of information on the Net? Is there a lab > (US or Europe) which gives full service for all the SEMi > requirements? > > thanks > moshe valdman Hello Moshe, Sorry for the lateness of my post. SEMI - Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International Try the following people Aimee Bordeaux, Manager, EHS Division 415.940.6939 aborde...@semi.org Linda Mikkelsen, Staff Assistant 415.940.6994 lmikkel...@semi.org You're basically under the machine directive. The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone, and do not reflect those of my employer.
Re: UL Marks and Repair of
Rich, This >> the City's own testing laboratory and labelling service. sounds odd. Is the City of Los Angeles running a NRTL? Heck, if I'd known that I would not have bothered sending for UL. Cortland
Re: UL Marks and Repair of
Yes, my experiences are similar. Inspectors do not want to approve any equipment which is not NRTL approved, even though they are given this latitude in OSHA, in 1910.399, definition: "acceptable", and the NEC in 110-3.a.1.FPN:( "Suitibility of equipment MAY be evidenced by listing or labeling".) It is simpler for them to say "no label, no way." (Especially L.A., which really has their own universe in these matters) But that was not the issue as I saw it in the hypothetical example given by Greg Hansen. There, he had a Listed and Labeled machine, and something happened to the Label during shipping. His assertion was that UL would require the whole thing go back to the factory for relabeling. I think that it would be OK to relabel it in the field if the machine was undamaged and unmodified. Hey, Paul Grabowski! What does UL say? Keith Gershon, Electrical Safety Engineer Lawrence Berkeley Lab kdgers...@lbl.gov -- List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 2/20/97 2:10 PM To: Keith Gershon From: Rich Nute Hi Keith: > So here is what you do: 1. Verify > with the engineer that the machine shows no signs of damage. 2. FAX him a > letter telling him to hook it up and that the home office takes responsibility > for any Code violation incurred by hooking up the machine with a questionable > label. 3. Call UL & explain the situation, and get permission to affix a Label > in the field, with the understanding that NO field modifications or damage to > the equipment occurred. 4. Send a factory rep out to the site & slap a label > on it. Sorry, Keith, but it doesn't work like that in Oregon. In Oregon, no mark, no hookup. Period. I can tell you lots of stories (my personal involvement) about printing presses, commercial laundry machines, microwave relays, TV film processing equipment, semiconductor processing equipment, none of which are normally certified by UL or anyone else. Each of these has been red-tagged until UL, ETL, FM, or equivalent, has been brought to the site (at the expense of the equipment owner), investigated and tested the equipment, and placed a label on it. (In the case of the printing press -- made in Germany with VDE- certified components -- the control panel had to be re-built with UL-certified components!) Same situation in the State of Washington. Production-line electric and electronic control equipment certified in place by UL or ETL prior to acceptance by the local electrical code inspector. Similar situation in the City of Los Angeles. The City sends inspectors to trade shows where they look for the mark. If they don't find the mark, they send a letter to the manufacturer informing him of the City regulations (a mark is required for a sale to take place), and the consequences of violating the regulation. The letter also offers the services of the City's own testing laboratory and labelling service. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Quality Department Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group San Diego Division (SDD) Tel : 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com -
Re: UL Marks and Repair of
Hi Keith: > So here is what you do: 1. Verify > with the engineer that the machine shows no signs of damage. 2. FAX him a > letter telling him to hook it up and that the home office takes > responsibility > for any Code violation incurred by hooking up the machine with a > questionable > label. 3. Call UL & explain the situation, and get permission to affix a > Label > in the field, with the understanding that NO field modifications or damage > to > the equipment occurred. 4. Send a factory rep out to the site & slap a label > on it. Sorry, Keith, but it doesn't work like that in Oregon. In Oregon, no mark, no hookup. Period. I can tell you lots of stories (my personal involvement) about printing presses, commercial laundry machines, microwave relays, TV film processing equipment, semiconductor processing equipment, none of which are normally certified by UL or anyone else. Each of these has been red-tagged until UL, ETL, FM, or equivalent, has been brought to the site (at the expense of the equipment owner), investigated and tested the equipment, and placed a label on it. (In the case of the printing press -- made in Germany with VDE- certified components -- the control panel had to be re-built with UL-certified components!) Same situation in the State of Washington. Production-line electric and electronic control equipment certified in place by UL or ETL prior to acceptance by the local electrical code inspector. Similar situation in the City of Los Angeles. The City sends inspectors to trade shows where they look for the mark. If they don't find the mark, they send a letter to the manufacturer informing him of the City regulations (a mark is required for a sale to take place), and the consequences of violating the regulation. The letter also offers the services of the City's own testing laboratory and labelling service. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Quality Department Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group San Diego Division (SDD) Tel : 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com -
IT and other Power Syatems
The discussion on IT power systems has returned me to a subject which has caused problems for some time. In Australia TT and IT power systems are not allowed, and a PE is always provided. This makes life relatively straight forward locally, but as some of our equipment has features which rely on this situation, it causes problems when we export products where the power systems are inconsistent. A main problem is that there is a general lack of appreciation that the equipment requirements can vary depending with the power system. It is also common that a customer, often including technical types, are not even aware there are different types of power systems. Now it is possible to make most equipment double insulated and compatible with almost all requirements for the different systems, but for some types of equipment this requires a reduction in functions or features in the equipment, or versions with different implementations. There are a number of lists available on the net which list voltages and even plug types for various countries, but we really need some more details, including; PE availability (always, where required or installation specific, rarely) Power System (TN-(C, C-S, S), TT, TI other) Voltage tolerance. Is any one aware of a comprehensive listing of this nature? >From the discussions re Norway, it appears that would be a useful tool. Chris Healy Liaison Manager, Standards and Approvals email : ch...@jna.com.au JNA Telecommunications Limited Ph (direct) : +61 2 9935 5728 16 Smith St, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Fax : +61 2 9417 3862 AUSTRALIA
